Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Weapons control

March 25, 2013

Dear editor: I finally figured out where the problem lies! It’s all in the name! You mention “Gun Control” and emotions suddenly rise to epic levels on both sides of the issue, so let’s call it what......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(30)

writer10

Mar-25-13 2:16 AM

Problem is they are going after basic guns now. Just because they look different they fire the same and use the same ammo. Besides look at the recent mass murders in NY State, their gun laws sure haven't stopped anything have they. Punishing the innocent will not get them to where they want to be.

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Backwoods

Mar-25-13 7:52 AM

Well said Writer10

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

colorado

Mar-25-13 8:20 AM

Talking about RPG's, BAR's, and automatic weapons is just done to cloud the real issue which is another liberal attempt to ban all citizen owned firearms.

Mayor Bloomberg is failing in most of his illegal attempts to control the citizens lives in his own state so now he is spending 12 million of his own money running misleading ads trying to control Pa citizens and the rest of the country.

While background checks seem like a good idea remember that last year 74,000 failed the present checks which is a felony but WERE NOT prosecuted. Now they want everyone to submit to one and a PERMANENT RECORD KEPT of who owns a gun. That's the last step before gun confiscation. It has nothing to do with safety or they would have been prosecuting the criminals failing the present checks.

There is no other reason to keep the record once a buyer has passed the check. If that provision is dropped gun owners would have no problem with the background checks.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-25-13 8:55 AM

Colorado, I just learned in another threat that the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is considering requiring registration of canoes and kayaks. That's the last step before confiscation. They will get my canoe when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

colorado

Mar-25-13 9:04 AM

25---too bad that isn't covered in the constitution as firearm rights are.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-25-13 9:34 AM

So, you agree then, that the state is doing this in order to confiscate my canoe? And, therefore, it is simply the misfortune of canoe owners in America that the Founders didn't have the foresight to protect these important modes of water transportation?

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-25-13 9:35 AM

I believe well-organized militias are covered by the Constitution.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

colorado

Mar-25-13 10:14 AM

25--I think you are just another anti gun liberal trying to cloud the issue with nonsense. The only two weapons you use when confronted with facts is cloud the real issue or resort to emotion.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jimmy1

Mar-25-13 11:29 AM

Anyone that can't see where this is headed is blind!

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-25-13 11:36 AM

I apologize. I didn't mean to cloud the issue by referring to the opening statement in the 2nd Amendment. "A well-organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..." Some letter-writers and posters here, contend that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals parity of armament should the tyrannical government infringe on their rights, that the amendment has nothing to do with sporting use of firearms, but rather a guaranteed legal avenue for armed insurrection. Thus, the writer's mention of here-to-fore military arms (like RPGs) is a logical progression, just as logical as your "last step to confiscation." It is neither emotional nor obfuscation.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-25-13 12:17 PM

For an anti-gun liberal, I sure own a lot of guns.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jimmy1

Mar-25-13 12:24 PM

Personally I'm not in to guns so much, but this is one of our constitutional rights! Once they (the government) get one foot in the door so to speak they won't stop! Want proof? Remember the patriot act? Ever since they have been hacking away at our rights! Wake up America before it is too late!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jimmy1

Mar-25-13 12:24 PM

Personally I'm not in to guns so much, but this is one of our constitutional rights! Once they (the government) get one foot in the door so to speak they won't stop! Want proof? Remember the patriot act? Ever since they have been hacking away at our rights! Wake up America before it is too late!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProudCountyResident

Mar-25-13 12:48 PM

I fully agree with 25. There is no constitutional basis by which any weapons may be witheld from the populace. There is no reason why RPG's, machine guns, or other armaments should be illegal to purchase provided you are of sound mind and do not have a history of illegal activity. I defy anyone to show where in the constitution or any ammendments that show that this blatant withdrawl of rights is acceptable.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

colorado

Mar-25-13 2:45 PM

25---for someone who claims to own a lot of guns you are sure naïve about what is happening in the area of gun confiscation attempts.

There is a video of D Feinstein stating if she had 51 senate votes she would have forced confiscation with the Clinton ban. In addition we have our neighbors to the North.

Gov Cuomo: 'Confiscation' Option For Upcoming New York Gun …

****breitbart****/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/21/Audio-Gov-Cuomo-Gun...

Audio Gov Cuomo: Gun Confiscation And Mandatory Sales to the State Are Options For New York

Now we have Mayor Bloomberg stating sometimes it is OK for politicans to infringe on the rights of citizens when they think it is necessary. He said that either in reference to banning large soft drinks or forcing women to breast feed. Imagine that---control of guns, breasts and soft drinks. That's a liberal for you.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-25-13 3:36 PM

Colorado: You forget about the third rail in American government -- the courts. If mayor Bloomberg can't get a ban on big gulp soft drinks past a judge, you really think he can waltz through with a major constitutional question like gun confiscation? As for Mrs. Feinstein's statement, that's a meaningless sound bite. First, 51 votes in the Senate is the minimum required to pass any bill...or block any bill, and thus could have been made just as forcefully by Mr. LaPierre. Second, bills must be passed by both houses in order to become law.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-25-13 3:47 PM

What about the fourth rail? Executive Order?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-25-13 4:01 PM

Still subject to the courts, MTO

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-25-13 4:04 PM

Had not Lincoln invoked his war powers, the courts at the time would have likely struck down the Emancipation Proclamation (which was to deny a declared enemy resources) on constitutional grounds. That's why the 13th Amendment was so important.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-25-13 6:07 PM

"Still subject to the courts, MTO"

A lot of damage can be done by the Feds in a short period of time. Yes, the courts have done such a wonderful job with "warrantless siretaps" haven't they?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-26-13 10:03 AM

Hm. I believe warrantless wiretaps are less pertinent to the current debate than the court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-26-13 10:05 AM

Or, McDonald v. Chicago, for that matter.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-26-13 10:06 AM

But, let's scare the bejabbers out of people like LocalYokel who believe that the boogey man is coming to get them and, what...throw them into FEMA trailers?! LOL

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-26-13 10:50 AM

The taps comment was just to show haw quickly our courts can resolve an issue.....or not.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-26-13 11:16 AM

I did like the canoe statement.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 30 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web